#Metoo, Or #TooFar?

Feminism is running off a cliff. Now that’s not news. They’ve been doing it for decades. With their increasingly misandrist ideology and their moral hypocrisy, feminists have made themselves an intellectual laughingstock across the world. Their latest cliff is #Metoo feminism.

#Metoo began as the outgrowth of accusations against Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein, who almost makes me ashamed to be a man, took rapacious advantage of his position of power and wealth in Hollywood, to sleep with (and rape) a considerable number of young women. The shock surrounding this has been public outrage that is… not to be entirely trusted.

It is easy for Hollywood actresses, who have wealth and status, to denounce Weinstein and other piggish men for their misdeeds, because it costs them nothing. Since the outing of Weinstein accusing him of sexual misdeeds is like accusing Al Qaeda of killing people. Neither is newsworthy. It would have been courage for a young woman to denounce Weinstein last year, or in the 20 plus years he’s been doing this. But then the cost would have been terrifying. The loss of a career before it started. I don’t blame these women for not coming out. I’ve known survivors of sexual abuse and rape, and they are not to blame if they cannot speak out. But to praise as heroines women who jump on a bandwagon, is an unfit use of the word ‘hero.’

But what’s worse is the demand that we ‘believe all women,’ who claim to have been victimized. Many men have been accused of misconduct by a woman, but never have the women been so universally believed. Not believed by police or courts of law, which have rules to determine their behavior towards the accused. But by courts of public opinion. By a media class which wants to propagate a narrative of bestial men abusing women.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t listen to these women, or take them seriously. But we can’t just believe them and treat the men they accuse like criminals. Some of these men, Weinstein, Cosby, Louis and perhaps Moore, are likely guilty of something. But let’s judge carefully before we throw them under the bus.

The writer Claire Berlinski has penned an interesting piece on this topic in American Interest. She recounts how, as a young undergrad at Oxford, her behind was pinched by a rather drunk Oxford don at a Christmas party. The don said, I’ve been dying to do this to Berlinski all term!” Alright, the man might have done something piggish while tipsy, this happens on college campuses continually. But what’s interest was Berlinski’s response, “I knew full well he’d been dying to do that. Our tutorials—which took place one-on-one, with no chaperones—were livelier intellectually for that sublimated undercurrent. He was an Oxford don and so had power over me, sensu stricto. I was a 20-year-old undergraduate. But I also had power over him—power sufficient to cause a venerable don to make a perfect fool of himself at a Christmas party.”

A 20-year old woman brought a don to make a fool of himself in the presence of others. And feminists complain of not having power? The power a pretty woman can exert over a man is tremendous. There’s a reason why Helen of Troy launched a thousand ships, she was the most desirable woman in Hellas. Berlinkski’s don was acting on the same motive that Paris was. They found a woman attractive, and did something foolish to show it.

She goes on to say, “Courtship is not a phenomenon so minor to our behavioral repertoire that we can readily expunge it from the workplace. It is central to human life. Men and women are attracted to each other; the human race could not perpetuate itself otherwise; and anyone who imagines they will cease to be attracted to each other—or act as if they were not—in the workplace, or any other place, is delusional.”

Absolutely correct. I’ve been in blue-collar work for years, and no one ever follows the rules laid down by feminists. I’ve heard lewd jokes cracked in mixed company, discussions of celebrities sexual attractiveness and open flirting on the job site. None of this should be shocking, because it’s nature taking its course. Men and women are still, no matter what, men and women. Attractions occur, sometimes they’re acted upon, with a variety of consequences.

We’re heading towards a world where a man can’t express interest in a woman under any circumstances, at all. London’s police are considering whether to count wolf whistling at a woman as a crime.

As a man, I say this stuff is terrifying. We’re starting to treat the remotest expression of male sexuality as being a crime. Is this really the road we want to take? We’re going to find people we’re attracted to, sometimes at work, and whether we do anything about it is in our hands.

Are we going to end in a place where a man can’t act on his sexual attraction to a woman? Because that’s how babies are made, folks.

Being male is no crime. Being interested in women around us is no crime either. How we, as men, act upon those attractions are regulated by social convention, laws and our own moral codes as individuals. If we occasionally make fools of ourselves, or even go too far, please don’t hold that against us. We’re not necessarily criminals or creeps. Inside of us sits a Tom Sawyer, who’ll make a total fool of himself for the sake of impressing a pretty girl.

Daniel Greenfield, Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, made a video about the book that prompted me to order it. Both men are respected defenders of freedom and watchmen over the threat of jihad in America, Israel, and around the world.

As he is wont to do, Greenfield points to leftist politicians as enablers of the jihadists by turning a blind eye to the rise of sharia law across America.

“These servants of the people, public servants, they’re actually masters of the people. They prefer to dictate than to be dictated to. Now, of course, Islamic terrorists will, in their own time, dictate to them. They will dictate to them using Islamic sharia law, but as far as the left is concerned for the moment, these are the people who need them, who are badly, desperately in need of being defended and protected and of course will happily trade their votes in exchange for getting a few benefits on the side.”

He continues on, examining the book’s sober pronouncements of intolerance of anything and anyone who does not bow to sharia law. To jihadists, there is only one acceptable way to live and all other perspectives must be subjugated or eliminated.

“Islamic terrorists have no attraction for anything really positive in life,” Greenfield continues. “They’re drawn to destruction. They’re drawn to emptiness because they themselves are empty. They’re hollow, and that is a central principle of Jamie Glazov’s excellent book.”

Patriots ranging from Steven Emerson to John Bolton are publicly recommending this book. I ordered my copy after watching Greenfield’s video. Freedom-loving Americans should watch it and consider reading “Jihadist Psychopath” by Jamie Glazov.

Related

Matt Walsh speaks out on #CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

When white Catholic students wearing MAGA hats are caught on video face-to-face with Native Americans on one side and Black Hebrew Israelites on the other, they’re definitely bigoted white supremacist hatemongers who went out looking for minorities to persecute. At least that’s how mainstream media and a good chunk of social media reacted when they saw the initial videos and images of smirking MAGA children.

But that’s not how it went down. It was the exact opposite of how it went down.

When the story first broke, I saw many of my fellow conservatives on Twitter scolding the kids while the progressive gangs attacked them. I held my tongue. It’s not because I don’t speak out against bigotry regardless of which side of the political, religious, or cultural aisle it comes from, but something seemed fishy. Other than having a disconcerting smirk, I didn’t see anything in the kids that resembled the type of bigoted outbursts we’ve seen in the past from actual white supremacists, Antifa, or other hate groups.

It seemed staged. As it turned out, it wasn’t quite staged, per se, but it was manufactured by the two “victim” groups who went after the MAGA kids, not the other way around. As political and religious commentator Matt Walsh asked, were they supposed to drop down to the fetal position when approached by the two groups?

2) They start screaming insults at the high school kids, who were just standing there clearly waiting around for something. They call the kids "incest children" and other insults. The kids respond by drowning the slurs with pep rally style cheers.

4) That's it. The end. The kids did not instigate anything, did not harass anyone, did not insult anyone, did not do anything wrong. The Black Israelites are obnoxious racists. Nathan Phillips was clearly trying to provoke something and when he didn't succeed he just lied instead

Hot takes on social and legacy media are often based on incomplete pictures. Before people get outraged and attack others over perceptions based on partial evidence, perhaps we should wait until the whole story comes to light. Just a thought.

Related

Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?

Extra-Biblical texts such as the Book of Enoch are often frowned upon by churches. Some see 1 Enoch as fake. Others say it’s a good historical reference but not inspired. The Ethiopian Bible includes it as scripture. Should we read it?

To understand the answer to this question, we need to consider three things. First, it was referenced as holy by many of the early church fathers, but was excluded from official canon. Second, Enoch is referenced multiple times in the Bible: Genesis 4 and 5, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14. Third, Jesus makes a statement in Matthew 22:29-30 that references “scripture” but what he is saying is only found in 1 Enoch.

Many who oppose the validity of Enoch say that it was written after the Book of Jude because the it includes the quote that Jude references, but fragments of Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which most scholars date to before Jude was born.

The scripture in question is Matthew 22:29-30:

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Nowhere in the 66 Books of the Bible does it say angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. What did Jesus mean when he said “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” in reference to the angels not marrying?

Here is 1 Enoch 15:5-7:

5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

Hmm.

As with anything regarding extra-Biblical texts, I must urge caution. Many who believe 1 Enoch is authentic refute the authenticity of 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. Then, there’s the question of inspiration and protection of the text. Many Christians believe the Bible has been able to survive and flourish despite so many attempts to disrupt it is because it has been protected over the millennia. If that’s the case, why was Enoch not included the whole time?

The answer to this question, to those who believe in its authenticity, may be found in the first two verses of the manuscript.

1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be 2 living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is 3 for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them:

If Enoch is real, it’s meant for a later generation living in the day of tribulation. If it’s a fake, then it’s intended to deceive those in the end times. Either way, it’s understandable that it would not be included in most Bibles.

I tend to believe 1 Enoch is legitimate, but not to the point that I would teach on it. Not yet. Much more prayer and study is required before I would ever risk misleading anyone.